Review on Sheet Metal Formability
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Volume 8 Issue 2 (2020) 82-85 ISSN 2347 - 3258 International Journal of Advance Research and Innovation Review on Sheet Metal Formability Shivang Chhikara, Rajat Khatta, Suraj Prakash Verma, Dadge Mukesh Shamrao Department of Mechanical Engineering, Delhi Technological University, Bawana Road, New Delhi-110042, India Abstract: Sheet metal Forming is one of the most important and diverse manufacturing processes Article Info and has been an integral part of industries like automotive and aerospace which need high density, Article history: lightweight and high strength materials. This paper tries to encapsulate the features related to Received 17 January 2020 Formability and its testing. Various parameters like anisotropy and strain rates on which the Received in revised form formability depends are also considered and their impact on the testing. Further, the paper 20 May 2020 Accepted 28 May 2020 includes study of Formability of Tailor Welded Blanks which is an integral part of the automotive Available online 15 June 2020 sector. At last the paper concludes with the future developments that can be made in this field Keywords: Formability, Forming Limit along with new modelling techniques and new advancements in testing. Diagram, Yielding, Anisotropy, Strain Rate 1. Introduction stretching is measured and the metals are rated on the basis of them. Sheet-Metal Formability is generally defined as the ability of the Formability tests are mainly divided into three broad categories- material (typically called as blank) to undergo plastic deformation intrinsic tests, simulative tests and the test that are used to plot the governed by flow rules to give the desired shape change without FLDs. The intrinsic tests consist of basically the uniaxial tension tests and are independent of the sheet metal geometry. In simulative tests, failure, such as wrinkling, cracking, necking, cracking, tearing, etc. drawing and stretching conditions are simulated because these are the Formability is not easily quantified as it depends on several factors most common ones in the industrial applications. The different types such as material flow properties, ductility, die geometry, die material, of simulative tests are Erichsen Olsen Tests, Swift Cup test, Limit lubrication, press speed, stress rate, strain rate, temperature Dome Height test and OSU tests. There are two experimental roughness, springback, strain localization, etc. [1]. Further, methods for obtaining FLDs, one is, Out-of plane formability tests formability of different materials also depends upon the sheet metal [5,6] and the second one is, In-plane formability tests [7,8]. For both process that is being undertaken for the production of the part. the tests, a grid marking scheme is used in which the sheet metal is Important processes in this field are bending, deep-drawing, stretch marked with a grid pattern and is deformed in the stretching tests [9]. forming, hydroforming, incremental forming and many more. The After this the deformation of the grid pattern is measured where either formability of any sheet is at its minimum at plane strain conditions necking has taken place or fracture has occurred, thus, giving the and so about 80-85% industrial failures occur around this state. So, values of major and minor strains. Examples of these tests include an ideal test should be able to simulate these conditions efficiently Nakajima Test [10], Marciniak Test [11]. and effectively. It should also be taken into consideration that no single formability test can relate the formability for all types of forming or stamping operations [2]. The basic forming characteristics of sheet metals can be obtained from simple mechanical tests such as tensile, bulge and hardness tests but these tests are too simple to relate to various parameters and phenomena such as strain-hardening. A few important parameters on which the formability of a sheet metal depends on are the strain-hardening index (n) which is usually obtained from flow curves (fig.1), strain rate and anisotropy of the material. Higher the strain hardening index and higher the strain-rate index(m), higher is the material’s ability to undergo large uniform strain before necking. Further, improvements in the drawability of the material is seen when the Anisotropy index (r) is higher. But there is a major disadvantage of these simple tests, i.e., they completely ignore the effect of variables (geometry of punch or die, lubrication, Fig.1: True stress versus True Strain Diagram [3] punch speed etc.) on the forming behavior of sheet metal completely. According to the power-law of strain hardening- Various theoretical models are also proposed to calculate forming limit diagrams of different sheet metals. These Modelling techniques 휎 = 푘휀푛 (1) are mostly based Bifurcation theory, geometrical imperfection theory and Continuum damage mechanics [4]. The modelling is also an 2. Formability Tests integral part of formability analysis because during the process of All the sheet metal industries have been looking for an ideal sheet metal forming, the plastic deformation itself includes a lot of formability test which can evaluate the metal’s ability to resist different phenomena like anisotropy, hardening, failure and fracture splitting failure that usually occur in plane-strain condition [1]. The that too occurring simultaneously. Thus, modelling or numerical most accepted way to predict of as sheet metal is by plotting the analysis tries to combine all these factors so that the cumulative effect Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) (fig.2). It is an experimental on formability can be seen. Some of the important modelling procedure in which a combination of two principal surface strains techniques developed are Hills criterion, Swift’s Model (Maximum (major and minor) are represented. The diagram consists of force criterion), Modified maximum force criterion (MMFC), Storen Formability Limit Curve (FLC) above which localized instability is and Rice (S-R) theory, Marciniak and Kuczynski (M-K) model and observed. The major and minor strains plotted in the FLC are one of the recent developments in this field is NADDRG model. obtained from these tests that are done under various train paths from Swift cup test evaluates the drawability of a sheet metal by simulating uniaxial tension over plane strain tension to biaxial tension [4]. In the drawing operation, in which the sheet is held under a blank holder formability tests the metal’s resistance to necking instability during and is drawn into small parallel sided cup. Drawability is measured by drawing various blanks with increasing the diameter one by one *Corresponding Author, and thus defines the Limit Draw Ratio (LDR) which gives an E-mail address: [email protected] estimation of the drawability. Swift cup test is highly standardized, All rights reserved: http://www.ijari.org IJARI 82 Volume 8 Issue 2 (2020) 82-85 ISSN 2347-3258 International Journal of Advance Research and Innovation with die and punch radii as 6.35mm. But its drawback is that it is a 3. Anisotropy and Formability very time-consuming process Till the 1980s the yield criterion for materials did not have the 푀푎푥푖푚푢푚 퐵푙푎푛푘 퐷푖푎푚푒푡푒푟 required anisotropic coefficients that these criterions were not much 퐿퐷푅 = (2) 퐶푢푝 퐷푖푎푚푒푡푒푟 accurate. Hills provided the useful yield criteria for anisotropic materials in 1948 and it was the only one to have some applicability in a number of stress cases. The isotropic yield conditions for various metals were given by Tresca and Von Mises using stress (σi) and deviatoric stress (Sj) tensors. 푎 푎 푎 휙 = |휎1 − 휎2| + |휎2 − 휎3| + |휎3 − 휎1| = |푆1 − 푎 푎 푎 2 푆2| + |푆2 − 푆3| + |푆3 − 푆1| = 2휎 (3) Here, σ1, σ2, σ3 are the principal stresses, 휎 is the effective stress. For a=2 and a=4 the equation becomes the Von mises criterion for a=1 and for the limiting case of 푎 → ∞ the equation becomes Tresca’s criterion. [15] For isotropic materials the yield criterions are independent of the reference frames. But for anisotropic materials yield properties are directional and thus the yielding criterion is independent on the reference frame. Thus, Hill extended the Von Mises criteria [16] to orthotropic materials (which exhibit orthotropic symmetry) 휙 = 2 2 2 2 퐹 (휎푦푦 − 휎푧푧 ) + 퐺 (휎푧푧 − 휎푥푥 ) + 퐻(휎푥푥 − 휎푦푦 ) + 2(퐿휎 푦푧 + 2 2 2 푀휎 푧푥 + 푁휎 푥푦) = 휎 (4) Here, F, L, G, H, M, N are material-based constants. This yield criteria provided accounts for planar anisotropy which is obtained Fig.2: Forming Limit Diagram (FLD) [12] from the equation (5) Erichsen and Olsen are basically two tests that simulate the 푟 +2.푟 + 푟 stretching operation conditions. In these tests, a sheet metal is 푟 = 0 45 90 (5) 0 4 clamped between two plates and a hole of diameter 25.4 mm is made These values of r are determined by uniaxial tension tests and then into it. Now, a ball with diameter, d, is pressed into the sheet until the cutting the sheet metal along three directions in the plane of the sheet fracture occurs. For Olsen test, d=22.2 mm and for Erichsen test, at 0°, 45° and 90°. d=20mm. Height of the cup, h at failure is used as formability index, Lankford et. Al [17] introduced the term strain ratio, or as it is higher this index is higher will be the formability of the material. The commonly called as the plastic anisotropy r-value and used this to disadvantages of this test are first they cannot be correlated with other represent the drawability of different sheet metals.it is also seen in mechanical properties of the sheet metal and second these tests have some researches that the limiting draw ratio in simulative tests is quite poor data reproducibility. Limiting Dome Height Test (LDH) closely related to the average r-value. Thus r-value of anisotropy has simulates the stamping conditions more effectively.